In a message dated 10/27/2006 11:19:07 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Which raises a bigger question (at least in my mind) ... Has there
been any recent discussion on HISTARCH or elsewhere relative to the
curation/non-curation of historic archaeological materials? I guess
I am most concerned about the high-volume, but (potentially) less
significant artifacts (e.g., nails, bricks, unidentifiable ferrous
lumps, window glass, twentieth century bottle glass, etc.).
Anybody like to talk about these as curation policies or issues, or
point me towards such a discussion?
Mark,
This always comes down to "it is not my research interest, so pitch it in
the dumpster!" when it comes to historical archaeology. Federal and state
agencies trip over their shoelaces to get rid of collections. I have heard the
State of California, Department of Transportation recently discarded a huge
historical archaeology collection. But any area specialist will always intervene
and demand his/her part of the collection be spared (eg. ceramics, or
insulators, or roof tile, etc.). Speaking as a tax-payer and one who believes the
meaning of sample recovery as a trade-off to allow complete destruction of the
rest of the archaeology, I believe the lead agency is obligated to paying for
permanent conservation and curation of the sample collections (permanent, as
in perpetuity). If you can't preserve it, then you need to move your freeway
to avoid it. Destruction after sampling is the worst form of betrayal of
public trust.
Ron May
Legacy 206, Inc.
|